Self explanatory. Also who would be awful without their power? Alexis Arguello, Thomas Hearns and Sugar Ray Robinson are just a few to get started.
Some maybe better if they didn't get lazy with their boxing because they knew their power would bail them out. If you have less power you adjust Tyson/Hamed would have been better if they werent so power reliant
Dempsey could have been successful. He had great defense, hand and foot speed and a good reach and height for his era. I don't know if Marciano without his power would have amounted to much.
Marciano is an odd case because, while he certainly had proven 1-punch KO power, he often broke his man down anyway. I don't think you can really "take away" power like Marciano has...because even if he wasn't able to 1-punch KO guys like he was normally able to, he still would've broken them down and stopped them anyway. His style was the same either way.
His defence and overall talent could win him fights. He doesn't have to be able to hit very hard. I'm not talking now Toney, I'm talking the young, in shape Toney.
Toney was a respectable hitter, though, but I think what Bill means is that a James Toney with ZERO punching power would still have been a great fighter, due to his defensive mastery and his general ringcraft.
I disagree. A fighter with as much resilience, durability, conditioning and offensive output as Marciano would still give people fits to no end, regardless of his power. Marciano almost certainly wouldn't have been undefeated without his power, and may not have been champion, but I don't doubt he would at the very least have been a highly successful contender. Sam Langford probably wouldn't have been such a giant slayer, but he still beats practically everyone his own size without his power, I imagine. I think Archie Moore could still have been champion at light heavyweight without the punch.
Toney was far from a big puncher. In fact, at heavyweight he had about as much punching power as Willie Pep, but still held his own.
